Anti-ACA former sheriff now begging for money to pay for medical bills

[longtimelurker]

I just love the comments.  On his son's own page.  Even the people who actually give this guy money criticize him.  

http://www.gofundme.com/helpsheriffmack

[Indy Texas]

I wouldn't give him a dime. Let him go sit in hell with Breitbart.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What, did he say people who get sick should not receive any help from anyone?  Or do you just not like that he has a different view of how to best provide care for people?

This is like someone saying you don't support some weapons program so if we get invaded by another country we should let them bomb your house. 

Don't act like ACA is some magic pill that solves every problem with no downside.  It has good and it has bad. I know some people who got health insurance on the exchange and would still be begging for money for medical bills given the high deductibles they would have to pay before anything kicks in.

[bedstuy]

I'm glad this guy won't be destroyed by medical bills or die because he can't pay.  That's great. 

But, a lot of people don't have the platform to crowdfund their medical bills.  So, it strikes one as hypocritical, no? 

And, sure, the ACA isn't perfect.  But, anyone who doesn't believe in taking care of people when they're sick and sees medicine as a business that should be left to the free market, this is what they accept.  This is the ugly downside of our medical system.  It as exists as much as the ugly downside of figuring our how we get universal healthcare and pay for everything in taxes. 

[7,052,770]

Don't act like ACA is some magic pill that solves every problem with no downside.  It has good and it has bad. I know some people who got health insurance on the exchange and would still be begging for money for medical bills given the high deductibles they would have to pay before anything kicks in.

If they make less than 250% of the poverty line, the government also pays a portion (on a sliding scale) of their copays and deductibles, in addition to their premium subsidies.

If they make more than that, they should be able to afford the deductible.

Obviously you know more about your friends' specific situations that I do, but the fact remains that people under 400% of FPL using the Exchanges generally shouldn't have higher bills, either in premium or cost-sharing, than they can handle. It's the people who make 401% of the poverty line who are screwed.

[Indy Texas]

What, did he say people who get sick should not receive any help from anyone?  Or do you just not like that he has a different view of how to best provide care for people?

This is like someone saying you don't support some weapons program so if we get invaded by another country we should let them bomb your house. 

Don't act like ACA is some magic pill that solves every problem with no downside.  It has good and it has bad. I know some people who got health insurance on the exchange and would still be begging for money for medical bills given the high deductibles they would have to pay before anything kicks in.

His situation is akin to a ship crew member insisting that there be no life preservers on board, and then falling overboard and expecting others to jump into the ocean to save his life.

[Indy Texas]

Or do you just not like that he has a different view of how to best provide care for people?

If you think begging for money on the Internet is the best way to fund healthcare, you're an idiot.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I wouldn't give him a dime. Let him go sit in hell with Breitbart.

[Brittain33]

If you think begging for money on the Internet is the best way to fund healthcare, you're an idiot.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Or do you just not like that he has a different view of how to best provide care for people?

If you think begging for money on the Internet is the best way to fund healthcare, you're an idiot.

shua must be a big Breaking Bad fan.

[AggregateDemand]

What, did he say people who get sick should not receive any help from anyone?  Or do you just not like that he has a different view of how to best provide care for people?

This is like someone saying you don't support some weapons program so if we get invaded by another country we should let them bomb your house. 

Don't act like ACA is some magic pill that solves every problem with no downside.  It has good and it has bad. I know some people who got health insurance on the exchange and would still be begging for money for medical bills given the high deductibles they would have to pay before anything kicks in.

I commend your attempt to reason with the rabid non-sequitur demographic, but you really shouldn't. It only makes them confirm their biases even harder.

Yes, someone who doesn't support universal care would naturally look to voluntary beneficence for help, but beneficence is something the statist will never understand. Morality is forcing other people to participate in your version of civic existentialism by threatening them with violent reprisal or impoverishment.

[anvi]

When you have a system that features almost unrestrained increases in health care cost inflation, neither charity nor insurance will be able to pay for a lot of what people need. 

[DemPGH]

Sounds like he wants others to pay his medical bills, which is why he fiercely opposed the ACA!

If you think begging for money on the Internet is the best way to fund healthcare, you're an idiot.

Seconded. Or the best way to fund anything that's necessary.

This sheriff appears to be someone who, out of some weird ideology, would act against his own wellbeing. Amazing.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sheriff-mack-gofundme-medical-bills

[AggregateDemand]

When you have a system that features almost unrestrained increases in health care cost inflation, neither charity nor insurance will be able to pay for a lot of what people need. 

True, and it begs the question: Why did the 111th enact the biggest expansion of government spendthrift, since W signed Medicare Part D into law?

Expanding the problem is never the solution. We have no market-based insurance services. Health-insurance is tax-free, which means employers and healthcare-providers want to expand coverage until it no longer resembles insurance.

Insurance programs that actively encourage people to make frivolous claims are never going to be affordable or go down in price. I went to the doctor for a regular checkup and regular vaccination. I need to make an insurance claim. What?

[anvi]

When you have a system that features almost unrestrained increases in health care cost inflation, neither charity nor insurance will be able to pay for a lot of what people need. 

True, and it begs the question: Why did the 111th enact the biggest expansion of government spendthrift, since W signed Medicare Part D into law?

Expanding the problem is never the solution.

I assume the major motive for enacting ACA was to expand coverage, because the number of people lacking any kind of insurance coverage in the U.S. was awful.  Problem is, of course, expanding coverage without controlling costs or having sound rationing mechanisms in place will increase utilization and only make total expenditures higher in the long run.  ACA doesn't address the cost issue.  But, if we're going to insist on spending gobs and gobs of money on health care without reigning in costs to begin with--and we weren't doing that before the legislation and showed no intentions of doing so--, then I'd prefer to have more people covered.

[AggregateDemand]

I assume the major motive for enacting ACA was to expand coverage, because the number of people lacking any kind of insurance coverage in the U.S. was awful.  Problem is, of course, expanding coverage without controlling costs or having sound rationing mechanisms in place will increase utilization and only make total expenditures higher in the long run.  ACA doesn't address the cost issue.  But, if we're going to insist on spending gobs and gobs of money on health care without reigning in costs to begin with--and we weren't doing that before the legislation and showed no intentions of doing so--, then I'd prefer to have more people covered.

The US is not about making the disease more tolerable, and no matter how hard the left bleats in this country, they are never going to be satisfied by their own half-assed political agenda. They aren't satisfied with Welfare and Medicaid now, yet all we do is spend more money and expand benefits. Expanding coverage to treat the symptoms of the disease only makes the problem worse.

I just had another client come in today. He's 71, works full-time with gross income around $100,000/year. He also collects $20,000 in Social Security benefits., and pays less than $3,000 in tax on the SS benefits. Yet another "insurance program" run amok. He's not even retired. Expanding coverage and conferring pointless economic benefits has only hastened the decline of our lower-middle class and manufacturing sector. Frivolous health insurance programs will have the same consequence.

This kind of civic malfeasance hides in plain sight, but half of the country is too stupid to see it. They expand coverage and benefits because insurance is good, but all they get is rapid decline. The rest of us just shake our heads. Like listening to drug addicts identify the world's problem as not enough drugs. Sure. Let's see where that gets us.

[anvi]

Clearly, Social Security needs some serious reform.  But I thought we were talking about ACA beneficiaries and not Social Security ones.  Do people who receive insurance subsidies from the ACA earn $100,000 a year?  And if they don't, if they're "lower-middle class" or earn less, and can't afford insurance premiums on their own but would like to have insurance for themselves or their children, would they consider premium subsidies a "pointless economic benefit?"  If they do want help getting coverage when they can't afford it themselves, are they, as you describe them, "stupid?"  You might not want expanded coverage for them, but many of them do, and since they're citizens just like you are, they get to vote.  So, instead of derogating them, maybe you should spend some time convincing them that your way will fulfill their needs better than what we're doing now. 

[Indy Texas]

Shua has a reasonable point about the ACA and accessibility, and I wish that people who support the law, as I do, were more focused on this problem. People I know who are on the front lines of health care reform emphasize the same point: Having insurance is no guarantee that you have access to affordable care, and it's an increasingly unreliable proxy given the growing share of expenses for which patients are responsible. Moreover, for people below or near the poverty line having to pay anything is frequently enough to deter them from seeking care.

It doesn't require that much pessimism to conclude from current trends in politics and healthcare that, five to ten years from now, access to care will be no better or worse than it was prior to the ACA despite >90% insurance rates in most states. (This is particularly likely if the Supreme Court continues working in concert with Republican governors to gut the bill, but I digress.)

Anyway, the interesting point at stake in this case is whether someone who relies on altruism and reciprocity can legitimately reject the welfare state. What he's doing is more than a bit ridiculous when you think about it in terms of creating moral hazard or the impossibility of crowd-funding meeting the health care needs of more than a small number of people. For that matter, if he had been insured, preventive care or an earlier screening might have prevented this situation or diminished its severity. All of this should be pointed out.

But does anything about his situation imply hypocrisy? No. Just selfishness and stupidity. I hope that he raises enough money to pay his bills, but if he doesn't and he dies because he can't get the care that he needs, he deserves a Darwin Award.

So it's better to be begging for the full cost of a hospital bill, rather than simply begging for the $10,000 out-of-pocket cost if he had insurance?

What are the odds this guy and the sheep who are giving him their money are going to pay the full sticker price for his bill? I'll bet they do. If he had insurance, all they'd have to pay is his co-pay and however much he needed to reach his out-of-pocket cap, and the insurance company would pay maybe half the bill.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Don't act like ACA is some magic pill that solves every problem with no downside.  It has good and it has bad. I know some people who got health insurance on the exchange and would still be begging for money for medical bills given the high deductibles they would have to pay before anything kicks in.

If they make less than 250% of the poverty line, the government also pays a portion (on a sliding scale) of their copays and deductibles, in addition to their premium subsidies.

If they make more than that, they should be able to afford the deductible.

Obviously you know more about your friends' specific situations that I do, but the fact remains that people under 400% of FPL using the Exchanges generally shouldn't have higher bills, either in premium or cost-sharing, than they can handle. It's the people who make 401% of the poverty line who are screwed.

I fairly certain the drop-off in assistance is much more gradual.

Or do you just not like that he has a different view of how to best provide care for people?

If you think begging for money on the Internet is the best way to fund healthcare, you're an idiot.

Aside from your remarkable reading comprehension skills, you are correct, it would be far smarter for him to just die out of shame as you propose. Send him some info on that, I'm sure he'd be grateful to hear your opinion on his illness.

[AggregateDemand]

Clearly, Social Security needs some serious reform.  But I thought we were talking about ACA beneficiaries and not Social Security ones.  Do people who receive insurance subsidies from the ACA earn $100,000 a year?  And if they don't, if they're "lower-middle class" or earn less, and can't afford insurance premiums on their own but would like to have insurance for themselves or their children, would they consider premium subsidies a "pointless economic benefit?"  If they do want help getting coverage when they can't afford it themselves, are they, as you describe them, "stupid?"  You might not want expanded coverage for them, but many of them do, and since they're citizens just like you are, they get to vote.  So, instead of derogating them, maybe you should spend some time convincing them that your way will fulfill their needs better than what we're doing now, instead of bitterly complaining about the "bleating left" on internet forums.

Yes. Millions of relatively wealthy Americans are getting Medicare and Medicaid benefits. ACA expands the latter without many controls to make sure the money goes to the right place. The general concept of SS is the same as MED or ACA.

Maybe rationalization would be satisfactory, if we really had some sort of moral conundrum between the rights of various groups, but we don't. It's just people allowing themselves to do reprehensible things with the treasury, and then justifying their misuse funds by purchasing an indulgence from the poor.......using a tiny fraction of the money we've set aside for the purpose of rehabilitating the poor.

It's okay to knowingly and negligently build a house without consideration for structural science or safety, as long as we're giving it to a homeless person. <------ The people who think this way are stupid, and they are making the rest of us worse off. The government is not even as noble as the private sector, who cut corners to boost earnings. The government is doing it wrong because laziness is easier than industriousness.

[anvi]

Yes. Millions of relatively wealthy Americans are getting Medicare and Medicaid benefits. ACA expands the latter without many controls to make sure the money goes to the right place. The general concept of SS is the same as MED or ACA.

If we're talking about shaving benefits for people who can afford various kinds of health care coverage by themselves, then I'd certainly be down with that.  But what are we defining as "relatively wealthy Americans?"  What percentage of "entitlement" spending goes to each quintile?  Which provisions of the ACA lack means-testing controls?  What is the "right place" for the money to go, in your view?   These programs cover different groups of people, though some cross-sections are duel-eligible, but they're only "the same" in the sense that they're social insurance programs. 

Anyway, if we're doing three things simultaneously in the foreseeable future, namely increasing utilization, not controlling health care cost inflation and not broadening the tax base intelligently, then we're heading for lots of problems with health care costs in the country, as if we didn't have enough already.

This is not a true statement. Bending the cost curve was always one of the Affordable Care Act's main objectives. There's a pretty contentious debate over whether that effort has been successful and about how much of the recent slowdown in cost inflation is attributable to ACA-related reforms. This would not be a debate if the law was not addressing cost inflation at all.

I'm aware of the debate, though I don't know if we've had enough time to collect data given that much of the law didn't get implemented until recently and there are parts still awaiting implementation.  There are also shifting large-scale economic factors to account for as well.  It may very well be that new numbers of enrollees, decreased claims during the recession or due to better health of newly retiring baby-boomers, dropping Medicare Advantage subsidies in the recent past and other factors have decreased the amount the federal government is spending on health care costs.  I'd be happy if the ACA bends the cost-curve long-term.  I also wouldn't mind so much the money the fed spends on health care if our national defense budget also didn't account for so much, but it does and there's no signs of that changing soon.  But I was thinking not just about how much the fed spends on health care, but a bunch of factors related to the total system; the tendency of health care cost inflation to outpace general inflation 3-1 in recent decades, the patterns of premiums to rise rapidly every year, and all the insane cost-shifiting that goes on in the American system because of its peculiarly fragmented nature.  The whole thing really sucks up a lot of our economy, and we can't seem to come together to get our hands around it as other nations have.